>>right...did you see iraq before the first gulf war?
>obviously
>>not.
>
>Um, yeah I did, what about it?

you couldnt say or do shit without a thousand saddam spies waiting to jump on your ass. how you gonna revolt for freedom when the majority are too scared to take a shit without asking.

>
>>>Further, U.S. subsidies increased
>>>right around the time Hussein was
>>>gassing the hell out of the Kurdish
>>>population, therefore, your beloved
>>>"democratic" heros in Washington never
>>>had any intentions of liberating the
>>>Iraqi people.
>>
>>that was then, this is now. your logic is severely flawed as
>>always.
>
>My "logic"... Hell outta here
>with that horsecrap.
>
>Yeah, that was "then", hotshot...
>And there's a common thread that
>runs through the past to the present:
>U.S. motives.
>
>If you would have me to believe
>for one moment that by some quirk
>of nature the U.S. just suddenly
>decided to care about Iraqis, your
>dumber than you already portray your-
>self.
>
>Let's examine the U.S. government's
>legacy in Iraq. It warmly supported
>Hussein during his most brutal acts
>of genocide, and supplied him with
>duel-use technology right up until
>the invasion of Kuwait (Great Britain
>as well).
>
>And your assertion is that Washington
>one day decided that after all the mass
>murders, it felt morally compelled to
>help Iraqis make a transition to a
>democratic regime? Do better.
>
>On the contrary, guru, Washington
>decided to rid the Middle East of
>Hussein after he decided he no
>longer wanted to be a client of U.S.
>"interests" -- much like Noreaga.
>
>This is well understood in Washington
>and had been reported in the foreign
>press for years. Institutions and
>Middle East experts you call morons,
>'Mr. Foreign Affairs' expert.

yea apparently you dont get the point of changing presidents every 4-8 years. could it be that one administrations views on the world could be different than the next?